[lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:04:13 -0500
> [Original Message]
> From: John Wager <johnwager@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 11/13/2005 8:47:07 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Willie Pete's Role Reversal
>
> Andy Amago wrote:
>
> >. . . .
> >In my opinion society wants young soldiers because they're innately more
> >aggressive; think school yard.
> >
> Modern warfare doesn't particularly need aggressive soldiers; it doesn't
> take much aggressiveness to fire an M-16 or a tank gun. But modern
> warfare DOES want young soldiers because they are less likely to ask
> questions of those who order them to do things. This does have some
> military justification; in war, it IS sometimes necessary to just do
> it. But the price for this quick acceptance of authority is high.
>
> >I think if everyone were recruited,
> >regardless of age or sex or occupation, with a cut off of say, 70, with
no
> >deferments for health status, war would lose a lot of its support real
> >quick.
> >
> >
> We would also have a lot more questioning of orders. I always tell my
> students that I think we should re-institute the draft, and that all
> philosophy majors should be drafted first, because the Army needs people
> in it who DO question authority and who DO want to stop and ask
> questions about morality, even before the deeds are done.
>
> But having said that, I don't think that ANY democratic society can
> exist without an army that does what the electorate asks, however stupid
> or Republican that electorate is. Soldiers must be willing to give the
> society the benefit of the doubt, so that unless they are asked to do
> something that is clearly immoral and/or illegal, they should follow
> orders. We can't have a military if every single soldier can determine
> what is a "100%" defensive war.
>
>
Soldiers shouldn't be asked to decide. That's the job of Congress. My
definition of defensive is a clear attack, like Pearl Harbor. In that case
most likely everyone would want to participate in some way anyhow. 9/11
was a terrorist attack by an organization, not a state. I'm talking about
offensive or equival wars, like Vietnam or Iraq. For those wars,
recruitment should be as I stated, everyone to the age of 70 with no
consideration given to age, sex, occupation or health status.
Andy Amago
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
